On 24/09/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/24/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Indeed. For a real-life example, the Mozilla
Foundation wanted to
> relicense all MPL code with the GPL and LGPL as well, and I think is
> *still* tracking down contributors whose code they want to relicense.
> The alternative is rewriting, which is just painful.
But unlike Mozilla it is easy to use only parts of an
encyclopedia.
New articles would be instantly under the new license. (And how many
new articles a day are we talking about, again?)
And again, at the very minimum, GFDL would still be in place. This
would just open up the possibility of future multilicensing. If it
really did become a hassle, one could just as similarly say "The WMF
has not designated any licenses other than the GFDL for
redistribution" and we haven't changed the status quo one bit, but at
least had the option to try.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just seeing a lack of actual
momentum for it, and I'm not sure how to start some myself.
IMO the sooner the GFDL is deprecated the better. But anyway.
- d.